To evaluate the neuropsychological effects of current low level and previous higher levels of exposure to lead and evaluate the relation between effects of lead and bone lead.
A neuropsychological test battery was given to 54 storage battery workers with well documented long term exposure to lead. The effect was studied in two subgroups: those whose blood lead had never exceeded 2.4 mmol/l (the low BPbmax group, n = 26), and those with higher exposure about 10 years earlier (the high BPbmax group, n = 28). In both groups, the recent exposure had been low. Correlations between the test scores and the indices of both long term and recent exposure--including the content of lead in the tibial and calcaneal bone--and covariance analyses were used to assess the exposure-effect relation. Age, sex, and education were controlled in these analyses.
Analyses within the low BPbmax group showed a decrement in visuospatial and visuomotor function (block design, memory for design, Santa Ana dexterity), attention (digit symbol, digit span), and verbal comprehension (similarities) associated with exposure to lead and also an increased reporting of subjective symptoms. The performance of the high BPbmax group was worse than that of the low BPbmax group for digit symbol, memory for design, and embedded figures, but there was no reporting of symptoms related to exposure, probably due to selection in this group. No relation was found between the output variables and the tibial lead concentration. The calcaneal lead concentrations were related to the symptoms in the low BPbmax group.
Neuropsychological decrements found in subjects with high past and low present exposure indicate that blood lead concentrations rising to 2.5-4.9 mmol/l cause a risk of long lasting or even permanent impairment of central nervous system function. Milder and narrower effects are associated with lower exposures; their reversibility and time course remain to be investigated. History of blood lead gives a more accurate prediction of the neuropsychological effects of lead than do measurements of bone lead.
Notes
Cites: Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 1978 Jul 14;41(4):217-36355147
Cites: J Occup Med. 1978 Oct;20(10):683-9722355
Cites: Br J Ind Med. 1983 Feb;40(1):99-1056824607
Cites: Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 1984;53(3):233-466706419
Cites: Scand J Work Environ Health. 1984 Feb;10(1):43-506740276
Cites: Br J Ind Med. 1984 Aug;41(3):352-616743583
Cites: Br J Ind Med. 1985 Aug;42(8):507-164016002
Cites: Am J Epidemiol. 1986 Feb;123(2):261-93946375
Cites: Br J Ind Med. 1986 Jun;43(6):374-803718881
Cites: Am J Ind Med. 1986;9(6):535-423017104
Cites: Br J Ind Med. 1986 Sep;43(9):626-93756115
Cites: Br J Ind Med. 1989 Oct;46(10):698-7072818958
Cites: Br J Ind Med. 1992 Sep;49(9):631-441390269
Cites: Occup Environ Med. 1995 Jan;52(1):2-127697135
Cites: Occup Environ Med. 1995 Jun;52(6):408-147627319
Cites: Occup Environ Med. 1996 Jul;53(7):472-78704872
Cites: Occup Environ Med. 1997 Jul;54(7):487-939282125
Cites: Scand J Work Environ Health. 1978 Dec;4(4):295-303734390